Are we just lacking interesting rich people in the UK then? The self-interest and misalignment of scientific funding re: actual progress vs publications/ prestige makes getting traditional sources on board difficult for a project like this but I guess the existence of similar barriers in the US is what's driving Schmidt to fund this kind of thing. He's putting his own money behind Future House, Arc is funded by the Stripe lads and Crypto winners - are government or typical US scientific funding bodies also backing these or is it all private capital?
I'm sure to be "world beating" and competitive (pound for pound) with the $Billions sloshing around in the US it would require UK government to get its act together which I'm not hugely optimistic about, but given our lack of non-boring billionaires (not real estate magnates) it looks like they'll have to. Future House will hopefully provide an example to point to of a functional new way. It's frustrating and envy inducing because $20 million pounds is a lot of money but it's not A LOT of money, all things considered. The MRC writes multiple cheques for microscopes and equipment in the £100Ks every year, I wonder how far even 10% of what Schmidt is spending could go. It also isn't like there's a lack of young, ambitious scientific talent in the UK. 100s of post-docs would knife their PI to work somewhere like Future House.
I'm not doubting the herculean efforts you must have already made when in government, but if an angel came to your room tonight and said "James mate, God says it's Your Mission to set up an FRO/your Lovelace Lab in the UK.", do you currently see any path at all between ossified government/funding bodies and (I assume) pretty gun-shy, profit-driven private capital to get it off the ground? Am I too naively optimistic about the UK to think this doesn't seem impossible?
Sorry for slow reply! I put this on a to-do list then got swamped.
I think the lack of major tech philanthropists in Europe is critical challenge. a) there are not as many extremely wealthy people in the UK or Europe (lower inequality, industrial composition, lack of tech giants), and b) those we have are generally not really connected to 'tech', and so are not exposed to the networks/arguments/experiences that motivate the US philanthropists. Those people we do have like Demis Hassabis who would be sympathetic to the cause are not of the wealth level to be meaningful tech philanthropists, though its possible in 15 years they are.
"I'm sure to be "world beating" and competitive (pound for pound) with the $Billions sloshing around in the US it would require UK government to get its act together which I'm not hugely optimistic about, but given our lack of non-boring billionaires (not real estate magnates) it looks like they'll have to."
I still think the main chance to do this in the UK is to anchor it via government, but its very difficult because every major stakeholder in UK research would much rather they give the money to them.
Note that even amongst the tech philanthropists in the US, many don't learn the key lessons from the great labs of the past and do not give the long-term support needed. One reason for this is tax - they prefer to give out money annually so they can put it against tax.
"I'm not doubting the herculean efforts you must have already made when in government, but if an angel came to your room tonight and said "James mate, God says it's Your Mission to set up an FRO/your Lovelace Lab in the UK.", do you currently see any path at all between ossified government/funding bodies and (I assume) pretty gun-shy, profit-driven private capital to get it off the ground? Am I too naively optimistic about the UK to think this doesn't seem impossible?"
We are working on a report trying to work out how to do this. if that doesn't go anywhere I'll move onto other things, i've given a lot of time to trying to reform UK R&D and, whilst helping set up things like ARIA is a big win for the UK, I've also sidelined other things I think are very valuable and unless opportunities to do more such things opens up there is a risk I waste my thirties on a hopeless cause.
Are we just lacking interesting rich people in the UK then? The self-interest and misalignment of scientific funding re: actual progress vs publications/ prestige makes getting traditional sources on board difficult for a project like this but I guess the existence of similar barriers in the US is what's driving Schmidt to fund this kind of thing. He's putting his own money behind Future House, Arc is funded by the Stripe lads and Crypto winners - are government or typical US scientific funding bodies also backing these or is it all private capital?
I'm sure to be "world beating" and competitive (pound for pound) with the $Billions sloshing around in the US it would require UK government to get its act together which I'm not hugely optimistic about, but given our lack of non-boring billionaires (not real estate magnates) it looks like they'll have to. Future House will hopefully provide an example to point to of a functional new way. It's frustrating and envy inducing because $20 million pounds is a lot of money but it's not A LOT of money, all things considered. The MRC writes multiple cheques for microscopes and equipment in the £100Ks every year, I wonder how far even 10% of what Schmidt is spending could go. It also isn't like there's a lack of young, ambitious scientific talent in the UK. 100s of post-docs would knife their PI to work somewhere like Future House.
I'm not doubting the herculean efforts you must have already made when in government, but if an angel came to your room tonight and said "James mate, God says it's Your Mission to set up an FRO/your Lovelace Lab in the UK.", do you currently see any path at all between ossified government/funding bodies and (I assume) pretty gun-shy, profit-driven private capital to get it off the ground? Am I too naively optimistic about the UK to think this doesn't seem impossible?
Sorry for slow reply! I put this on a to-do list then got swamped.
I think the lack of major tech philanthropists in Europe is critical challenge. a) there are not as many extremely wealthy people in the UK or Europe (lower inequality, industrial composition, lack of tech giants), and b) those we have are generally not really connected to 'tech', and so are not exposed to the networks/arguments/experiences that motivate the US philanthropists. Those people we do have like Demis Hassabis who would be sympathetic to the cause are not of the wealth level to be meaningful tech philanthropists, though its possible in 15 years they are.
"I'm sure to be "world beating" and competitive (pound for pound) with the $Billions sloshing around in the US it would require UK government to get its act together which I'm not hugely optimistic about, but given our lack of non-boring billionaires (not real estate magnates) it looks like they'll have to."
I still think the main chance to do this in the UK is to anchor it via government, but its very difficult because every major stakeholder in UK research would much rather they give the money to them.
Note that even amongst the tech philanthropists in the US, many don't learn the key lessons from the great labs of the past and do not give the long-term support needed. One reason for this is tax - they prefer to give out money annually so they can put it against tax.
"I'm not doubting the herculean efforts you must have already made when in government, but if an angel came to your room tonight and said "James mate, God says it's Your Mission to set up an FRO/your Lovelace Lab in the UK.", do you currently see any path at all between ossified government/funding bodies and (I assume) pretty gun-shy, profit-driven private capital to get it off the ground? Am I too naively optimistic about the UK to think this doesn't seem impossible?"
We are working on a report trying to work out how to do this. if that doesn't go anywhere I'll move onto other things, i've given a lot of time to trying to reform UK R&D and, whilst helping set up things like ARIA is a big win for the UK, I've also sidelined other things I think are very valuable and unless opportunities to do more such things opens up there is a risk I waste my thirties on a hopeless cause.